期刊文献+

公平公正待遇的最新发展动向及我国的对策 被引量:33

公平公正待遇的最新发展动向及我国的对策
原文传递
导出
摘要 国际投资协定中的公平公正待遇目前已成为最具争议性的条款之一。近年来,投资者以东道国违反公平公正待遇为由索赔的案件迅速增加,而且不少索赔案件得到仲裁庭的支持,从而置东道国于被动不利的境地。对此,缔约国可以通过在条约中对公平公正待遇加以定义,或对其适用范围加以限制,或对其适用的例外情况加以规定等方式,给公平公正待遇的解释和适用提供指南,限制仲裁庭在解释和适用公平公正待遇条款时的自由裁量权;或者将公平公正待遇排除在可仲裁事项之外。 Fair and equitable treatment has become one of the most controversial clauses in international investment agreements. Recently, the claims brought by foreign investors against host states in light of such clause are increasing rapidly, and the arbitrators have ruled in investor's favor in some cases, thereby often leaving a host state in a unfavorable position. The Parties to the treaties may provide guidance to the explanation and application of the fair and equitable treatment clause and thus refrain the discretion of arbitrators by giving a definition to the fair and equitable treatment, restricting the scope and coverage of the clause, or imposing certain exceptions on its application. Alternatively, a state may also preclude the matters concerning fair and equitable treatment from the scope of arbitration.
出处 《法学家》 CSSCI 北大核心 2007年第6期151-156,共6页 The Jurist
关键词 公平公正待遇 习惯国际法 投资争端仲裁 国际投资协定 Fair and equitable treatment Custom international law Investor-state arbitration International in- vestment agreement
  • 相关文献

参考文献20

  • 1UNCTC, Bilateral Investment Treaties (1988), p.31.
  • 2余劲松.外资的公平与公正待遇问题研究——由NAFTA的实践产生的几点思考[J].法商研究,2005,22(6):41-48. 被引量:37
  • 3F. A. Mann, British Treaties for the Formation and Protection of Investment, British Yearbook of lntemational Law 24, 244 (1981) .
  • 4OECD, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law, OECD Working Paper on International Investment, 2004/3.
  • 5PSEG Global Inc. & etc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, p. 62, Award, January 19, 2007.
  • 6Azufix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, icsiD Case No. ARB/01/12, pp.129-135, Award, July 14, 2006.
  • 7LG&E Energy Corp. LG&E Capital Corp. LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, para. 122-126, Decision Liability, October 3, 2006
  • 8CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, para. 274-278, Award (May 12,2005 )
  • 9MTD Equity Sdn. and MTD Chile S.A.v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award (May 25, 2004) .
  • 10Supplementary reasons for BCSC Decision (October 31 2001), para. 4. at http: //ita.law.uvic.ca/Metalclad-BCSC Additional Reasons htm.

二级参考文献13

  • 1See Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. The Government of Canada, http://wol, international, gc. ca/minpub/Publication, asp? publication_id=37831 &Language= E.
  • 2See S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, 40 I. L.M. 1408, 1437 (NAFTA Arb. Trib. Nov. 13, 2000).
  • 3See Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, 40 I. L. M. 36 (2001).
  • 4See NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions 2 (2001) clarifying that article 1105 embodies the customary international law standard for determining possible violations of "fair and equitable treatment" and "full protection and security", see httpt//WWW, naftaclaims, com/Papers/July%2031%202001%20NAFTA%20FTC%20Statement. pdf.
  • 5See David A. Gantz, The Evolution of FTA Investment Provisions: From NAFTA to the United States - Chile Free Trade Agreement, 19 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 679, 715 (2004).
  • 6A. Roth,The Minium Standard of International Law Applied to Aliens(1949),p. 99.
  • 7See R. Lillich, Duties of States Regarding Civil Rights of Aliens, Recueil des Cours (1978) ,p. 350.
  • 8See J. H. W. Verzvjl, International Law in Historical Perspective(1972) ,p. 438.
  • 9See Mondev v. United States, 42 I. L. M. 85 (2003).
  • 10See ADF Group, Inc. v. United States, paras. 44-45 (ICSID Jan. 9,2003), http://WWW, worldbank, org/iesid/eases/ADF-a-ward. pdf.

共引文献36

同被引文献400

二级引证文献405

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部